The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the Petition with F.C.O.P.No.65 of 2024 on the file of Judge Family Court, at Khammam under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against me seeking to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving our marriage could be transferred to try along with D.V.C.No.31 of 2015 on the file of lll Additional First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda or M.C.No.29 of 2015 on the file of Judge Family Court, at Warangal under Section '125 of Cr.P.C as the subject matter, parties and evidence proposed being common. Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to F.C.O.P.No.65 of 2024 on the file of Judge Family Court, at Khammam pending disposal of above Transfer Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N PANDAIAH Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI BANDA SRI KIRAN The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA Tr.C.M.P. No. 297 of 2o24 12th DAY OF 2(J25 Between: Mrs. S. Menaka @ .Iayasree, Warangal District AND Mr. Rangu Hanumantha Rao, Khammam District. ...petitioner ...respondent ORDER: Heard Mr. N. Pandaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I3anda Sri Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is {iled aggrieved by the petitioner lwrfe seeking transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 65 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Judge, Family Court at Khammam, to the file o[ learned [Il Additional First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda or to the file of learned Judge, Family Court at Warangal.

3. The petitioner and respondent are legall,v '"vedded husband and rvife, having been married on l2.O6.2OLl at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. The petitioner and respondcnt shifted to Chennai as the ] ) 2 " RY,J trcmp_297_2024 respondent was working at chennai. There the respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically for additional dowry in accordance with his status and said issue led to matrimonial disputes. A male child was born on 3o. r2.2o13. The respondent and his parents did not turn up to see the child by increasing the demand for additional dowry. In the circumstances, a private complaint was lodged against the responcrent and his fanril-v members before the Station House officer, Subaciari poiice Station anc[ a case in cc No. 6g6g of 2022 was filed and said case is coming for:vidence of p.w.1. The petitioneralso filed a D.V.c. No.3i of 2ols pendi'eg on the file of learned III Additional First class Magisrrare, Hanumako.da ancl M.c. No. 29 of 2o1s pending on the file of learned Judge, Fam.11' court, warangal. In M.c. No. 29 of 2o15, the Family court directed thr: respondent to pay Rs.10,0oo/- to the petitioner and Rs'20'00o /- for the maintenance of minor child. while things stood rhus, the respondt:nr filed F.c.o.p. No. 65 of 2024 on the file of learned Judge, Family cou.t at Khammam, under Section r3(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19s5, seeking the dissorution of marriage. The said F.c.o.P., is r:urrentry at the stage of appearance of the petitioner. Since all the cases are at Hanumakonda and the petitioner is unable ro maintain herself, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Khammam to defend the F'c'o'P' In case the related cases are tried before the differcnr courts, the*: is likelihood of conflicting decisions being delivered. As such, the present Tr.c.M-p., is filed seeking transfer of F.c.o.p. No. 65 of 3 RY,J trcnry-297_2024 2024 from the learned Judge, Family Court, Khammam, to the file of learned III Additional First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda or learned Judge, Family Court at Warangal.

4. The respondent filed a memo with a letter issued by his employer SRS Tech Force, showing approval of work from home arrangement on medical grounds. The contention of respondent is that he is suffering from hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HocM) and due to said medical condition, he cannot do any activity which causes stress, physical strain and long travel. Due to health timitations, his employer has granted permission to work from home enabling him to continue the emplovment without need for frequent travel. The letter issued by the employer permitting the respondent to work from home shows both medical and employment constraints. Transferring the F.c.o.P., from Khammam to Hanumakonda would entail long distance travel and the same is likely to have severe effect on the health condition of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent requested the work from home approval letter to be received and to dismiss the Tr.C.M.p.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that all the related cases i.e., C.C. No. 6868 of 2022, D.V.C. No. 3l of 2OI5 and M.C. No. 29 of 2015 are pending before the Courts at Hanumakonda and therefore, the '''present F.C.O.P. No.65 of 2024 also needs to be transferred to the fileof rlearned tll Additional First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda or to the file \ \ 4 . RY,J trcmp_297_2024 of learned Judge, Family court, warangal. It is submitted that the distance br't'q,'ssn Hanumakonda and Khammam, is too vast and it is diflicult for the petitioner to travel to such a distance when she is an unemployerl housewife with no income and dependent on the maintenance provided by the respondent. With respect to the health condition o1'the respondent, it is argued that the medical certificates are created anc the other heaith reiaLed documents produced are fabricated with concocted story onl-v to harass the petitioner by making her travel to Khammam, for the purpose of pursuing the F.c.o.p. No. 65 of 2024 filed by the respondent.

6. The respondent part_y-in-person argued the matter and produced the letter ssued b-y the emploS,er i.e., SRS Tech Force located at Kelambakk€tm, Chcnnai, rt'hcreir.r permission is granted to the respondcnt to work frorn home on mcdical grounds. It is argued by the respondent party-in-person that he seriously has limitations on account of his health condition that he is not able to travel long distances as the same is likel-y to cause further worsening condition of his heart. It is submitted that he is not even able to u,ork in Chennai due to his health condition and therefore, travelling from Khammam to Hanumakonda, is a situation which woulcl cause him untolcl hardship nothing short of putting his lite in danger. l I I 5 RY,J trcmp-297-2024

7. When the case of the petitioner is examined, it is seen that the distance between Hanumakonda and Khammam, indeed is long and would entail huge amount of time and effort to travel on every date of hearing. tt may cause inconvenience on account of having to look after a minor son as well. Further, the situation is complicated on account of the petitioner being an unemployed lady. However, when the hardship of the petitioner/wife is compared to the hardship faced by the respondent/husband, it is seen that the respondent/husband is at a greater inconvenience as compared to the petitioner/wife' The health the respondent having hypertrophic obstructive condition of cardiomyopathy (l{ocM) indeed has constrained the respondent to work from home. Such being the case, asking him to travel for the purpose of pursuing the Tr.C.M.P., is likely to endanger his life and therefore' this court upon comparing the inconvenience of both the parties is not inclined to grant the relief sought in the Tr.c.M.P. In view of the developed technolory the petitioner/wife can always appear through online video conferencing or physically, depending upon her choice' The l"u.rned Judge, F-amity Court, Khammam, may not insist upon the physicat presence of the petitioner to appear on every date of hearing when her presence is not necessary. The petitioner is permitted to appear in the F.C.O.P. No. 65 of 2024 through video conferencing or in person as per her choice depending on the stage of the F.C.O.P' Since arrangements can be made in the form of online video conferencing, the appearance of \ ) \ 1 ] 6 - RY,J trcmp_297_2O24 the petitiol)er before the trial court is dispensed with unless her presence is specificzLfly required during the course of trial in F.c.o.p. No. 65 of 2024 and the F.c-o-p. No. 65 of 2024 filed by the respondent can be prosecuted at Khammam. The aspect of pendency of c.c. No. 6g6g of 2022, D.V.'1. No. 3 | of 2015 and M.c. No. 29 of2015 at Hanumakonda, need not br: a reason to cause further inconvenience to the respondent. In vierv of the foregoing discu.ssion, this court is of the opinion that the Tr'c'M'P prayer cannot be granted and the Tr.c.M.p., is liable to be dismissed. 8 ln the result, the Tr.c.M.p. is dismissed. There shail be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if a'y pending, shalr stand closed. SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S t t I I To, {

1. The Judg,-., Family Court, Khammam 2. The lll Additional First class Magistrate, Hanumakonda 3 The Farnily Court, Warangal 4. One CC to Sri N pandaiah, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to gpl Banda Sri Kiran, Advocite tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies ABIVSa fu" HIGH COURT DATED: 1211211r-025 ORDER TRCMP.No.297 ot 2O24 'I E rAS r{ llAJ 1 * .i \.) DISMISSING TTIE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS b\